So chris is getting rid of the desert landscape?

[ireadam]

I really hope not, that was honestly one of my favorite parts and I want really looking forward to biomes and lush areas, why not implement the armies, where your just a grunt thrown into massive battles? THAT is what I was looking for.



Now I dont know if I'm alone in this opinion, but I'm just stating my case.

[Kamos]

Nah it will mix in with the rest but there will still be desert.

[sumo0]

I too like the overall desert theme, but i do think that some biomes like snow and maybe some kind of oasis(es) with palm trees and some grass (along a river maybe?) would be nice.
Snowcovered mountain chains would be cool, and i would probably build a city there if a place like that existed ingame.

All in all, this sounds interesting, and i can hardly wait to see more of this game.!

[toaster Assassin]

Not all of it, and basically there are still other types of wastelands (ex: tundra, plains) that can be implemented as possible zones. Things like cirques or (better yet hanging valleys) would be a great feature.

Hanging Valley

DSC_0102_2006-12-21_12-52-32_NewZealand-11_60.jpg (65.3 KiB) Viewed 5769 times

Desert cliff city

Mesa-Verde-Incredible-City-Cliffs-around-the-World-6-600x480.jpg (86.24 KiB) Viewed 5769 times

[Mattk50]

I was more concerned with this bit:

"The world map will have more distinct zones. These zones will have different faction domination, races, different danger levels. Some zones will be impossible to survive until you are very strong. Eventually these zones will also have different creatures and biomes (eg grasslands, marsh, snow possibly, etc)."

Seems a bit too gamey and progression derpy to me, even reminiscent of WoW like progression. Was expecting a more dynamic world than boring set zones with "difficulty levels".


Also, the downsizing of the world map... I think chris is missing the point there. his reasoning for making it smaller is the long walk times, when there are far better ways to solve long walk times in a singleplayer game than just making everything smaller. For example, more speed options(i'd suggest a log scale slider or something), and being able to order people to a place by clicking on the map, rather than needing to be within a distance to move them there. Also, if the speed didnt reset every zone change...

[CaptainZeros]

I'm with Mattk50.

Not only the size of the world, but how you move about in it really impacts playability and more important replayability. For instance, Oblivion was a much bigger world than Morrowind.......... but it didn't FEEL like it, because of how they handled fast travel. By giving just enough convoluted options for fast travel the world of Morrowind felt huge at the beginning, but as soon as you began to learn your favorite routes it wasn't that bad, the initial sense of wonder doesn't die because you can't just haul up a map screen and just teleport to wherever, you have to TRAVEL through the world, even if it's just tying together instant transit.

It's like the difference between driving a car with your windows down or cruising with the hatches battened down and the AC on and the radio blaring. It's the difference of whether you're a part of the world you're traveling in or not.

[Dimler]

I was more concerned with this bit:

"The world map will have more distinct zones. These zones will have different faction domination, races, different danger levels. Some zones will be impossible to survive until you are very strong. Eventually these zones will also have different creatures and biomes (eg grasslands, marsh, snow possibly, etc)."

Seems a bit too gamey and progression derpy to me, even reminiscent of WoW like progression. Was expecting a more dynamic world than boring set zones with "difficulty levels".


Also, the downsizing of the world map... I think chris is missing the point there. his reasoning for making it smaller is the long walk times, when there are far better ways to solve long walk times in a singleplayer game than just making everything smaller. For example, more speed options(i'd suggest a log scale slider or something), and being able to order people to a place by clicking on the map, rather than needing to be within a distance to move them there. Also, if the speed didnt reset every zone change...

how are zones that you can't survive until you are stronger too "gamey and progression derpy"? that seems perfectly natural to me. to use some extreme examples if you put a child in a hungry lion's den they most likely aren't going to survive. or even if you try to explore the rain forest without experience, equipment, or other people you probably won't survive. in fact it could just be that is exactly what Chris meant. that there will be zones that you couldn't survive without the proper experience, equipment, or crew to back you up. wither it be bandits, cannibals, tyrannical warlords, marsh gators, desert hyenas, or a pack of wolfs.

about the size of the map, the way I understood what Chris wrote was originally he was going to make it 4x bigger but now is only going to make it 2x or 3x bigger. I'm not really sure how I feel about the map size because I find that I currently only hang out around 3 or 4 cities for trade, but that has more to do with the fact that I have to micro manage the trading. I think once that is changed I'll spread out more.

[Blxz]

I'll have to also side with matt on this. Speed options and the long promised 'Jagged alliance fast travel map' options work far better than shrinking the map. Although I can see the reasons chris has stated and to some degree I can agree with them I still think that moving away from a massive sprawling map because of the range limits of people travelling is not a good reason.

Still, I am no game designer. Chris is the one holding the reins. If he thinks it works better with his vision of the game then...good for me, I guess.

[Shoelip]

What about sand whales? Will there be sand whales?

[Mattk50]

how are zones that you can't survive until you are stronger too "gamey and progression derpy"? that seems perfectly natural to me. to use some extreme examples if you put a child in a hungry lion's den they most likely aren't going to survive. or even if you try to explore the rain forest without experience, equipment, or other people you probably won't survive. in fact it could just be that is exactly what Chris meant. that there will be zones that you couldn't survive without the proper experience, equipment, or crew to back you up. wither it be bandits, cannibals, tyrannical warlords, marsh gators, desert hyenas, or a pack of wolfs.

thats the thing, I want all of that to be everywhere, dynamically moving around the world. The "progression" should be stuff like stepping out of your city alone (as opposed with a large armed escort of caravan guards) or trying to attack a bandit base of some sort. Not just "oh, im lvl 20, now i can go to the scary looking zone with the spikes coming out of the ground"

Furthermore, how could an economy possibly work in such a zone system? Assuming the miners, peasants etc are all relatively similar in self defense skill, these NPCs in the harder zones would be constantly murdered while the dudes in the lower zones would never be touched. Sure there should be places more dangerous, like many a rougher town but the idea of "snow area with more danger" in a smaller map just doesnt sound like that to me. Its the difference between moving around the fallout 3 world for example and moving through fable 2.

edit: or like in mount and blade, how the world starts out with different factions in set places but by the end of a game the desert folk can be living in the tundra and the nords can be desert dwellers.

[Shoelip]

Well, maybe there're only certain parts that are safe enough to be inhabitable. If that were the case then the different danger levels make perfect sense. Some places are more dangerous than other.

[Chat]

I'd expect that it'll be done in more of a natural sort of progression to how Kenshi currently is, which I'm sure it will be. No "go here to train up so you can go here to get more skillz and lootz." Anywhere can be dangerous if you're not prepared or don't notice the danger approaching, but there are still areas more dangerous than others. Immediate areas around many towns for example I'd expect to be pretty safe, least not because you can just flee back for help. But a besieged town would be far more dangerous, perhaps even with the guards preferring to leave you to the dogs rather than going out of their way to help you. Bandit nests naturally would be dangerous, as would distant areas away from trade routes and towns. A more dynamic sort of danger I suppose. Just as long as people can't really say "go here, then here for skillz and lootz."

I've only really played a couple of times so far, but I haven't had any trouble with finding trouble when travelling between towns. But I suspect that the downsizing the active map area is more to allow the generation of larger armies than just more bandit groups to lure back to town. Cutting down the actual world map size from what was originally planned, I don't know about. If fast travel is still on the books, then the longer on foot travel times is kind of moot. If there won't be fast travel, since it may cut out on running into hostile groups, then just adding another higher speed will pretty well fix the travel time and keep the flow of the game going. But if the smaller, more town/stuff-dense map works well, then I'm fine with that too. Compared to the "you're not special" and the no 'skill here then here' ideas, the size/density of the map isn't what attracted me to Kenshi in the first place.

Though the general inhospitable nature of Kenshi was what attracted me, different biomes I like, I'd rather a bit more than just desert. Forest just doesn't feel like it would fit in with Kenshi in my view, so I'm glad that it wasn't mentioned. Areas of scrub wouldn't be bad though. Plains, marshes and scrub don't necessarily have to be lush, much less appealing. The plains I'd expect would probably look fairly dry, scrub scraggly and windswept. Marshes might be green/brown, but they're usually not fantastic places to spend a holiday. Different resources in those areas I like too, as with more focus on non-town stuff.

With all this stuff mentioned though, I'm a little worried that Kenshi will get too content dense and lively, killing the desolate feel it currently has, or worse; that feature creep will kill it. But I'm sure it'll be fine.

[Captain Deathbeard]

I'm not going to try to make it "gamey and progression derpy". I hate WoW. The lines between them will be blurry and natural. For instance one area will be more populated by towns and major factions, this area will be more "civilised" and have enforced laws, but you have bandits, thieves, corrupt officials, slavers and taxes to deal with. On the flip side you can go out into the untamed wilds, no taxes there and potential richer resources but then you have swarms of cannibals and wild beasts, so its more dangerous and needs better preparation for survival.
Then another zone might be populated by the more lawless towns, so its freer but rougher and you don't have law enforcement to protect you.
Then you might have a total war zone where 2 or more major factions are clashing and you can get mixed up in big battles.


As for the reduction in active loaded area, this gives a lot of benefits. It means less memory and CPU usage, better frame rates, less crashes and therefore bigger squad sizes and larger battles can be had.

[The Ed]

I'm not going to try to make it "gamey and progression derpy". I hate WoW.

I hate that progression crap to, And glad to hear I'm not the only one that hates world of warcrap.

[Mattk50]

I'm not going to try to make it "gamey and progression derpy". I hate WoW. The lines between them will be blurry and natural.

Awesome, had me worried there for a bit.

[Chat]

Yay, excitement levels for Kenshi remain high. Can't wait to see how it'll all play out.